2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.07.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The role of meaning and form similarity in translation recognition in highly proficient balanced bilinguals: A behavioral and ERP study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

8
22
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
8
22
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Mean N400 amplitude was calculated for each subject at each ROI between 300 and 500 ms separately for pairs of words with congruent and incongruent gender. The time window for the N400 was consistent with previous studies (e.g., Guo, Misra, Tam & Kroll, 2012; Ma, Chen, Guo & Kroll, 2017; Moldovan, Demestre, Ferré & Sánchez-Casas, 2016).…”
Section: Eeg Recordingsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Mean N400 amplitude was calculated for each subject at each ROI between 300 and 500 ms separately for pairs of words with congruent and incongruent gender. The time window for the N400 was consistent with previous studies (e.g., Guo, Misra, Tam & Kroll, 2012; Ma, Chen, Guo & Kroll, 2017; Moldovan, Demestre, Ferré & Sánchez-Casas, 2016).…”
Section: Eeg Recordingsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…On critical trials, the L1 target is not the correct translation (e.g., ajo ) of the L2 prime (e.g., garlic for Spanish–English bilinguals), but is related to it either in form (e.g., ojo is a form neighbor of ajo , but has the semantically unrelated meaning ‘eye’) or meaning (e.g., cebolla means ‘onion’; e.g., Talamas et al, 1999 ). In proficient bilinguals, both form and semantic distractors produce behavioral interference effects (i.e., slower and less accurate responses compared to unrelated incorrect translations; e.g., Altarriba and Mathis, 1997 ; Ferré et al, 2006 ; Moldovan et al, 2016 ). This suggests that both the meanings and the form of the translation equivalents are activated and make it more difficult to reject the distractors as incorrect translations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, at a 300 ms SOA, the effect for form distractors within the P200 window disappeared. This prompted the authors to suggest that semantic representations were activated before the L1 translation equivalents (see also, Moldovan et al, 2016 ). Guo et al’s (2012 ) electrophysiological data and SOA manipulations provided detailed time-course information that supports semantics as a primary source of translation priming for proficient bilinguals.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The design of this experiment and the stimuli included were the same as for the second task. Previous studies using translation recognition tasks have reported significant through-translation interference effects when primes and targets were not translation equivalents but contained form similarities (e.g., Ferré, Sánchez-Casas, & Guasch, 2006;Guasch, Sánchez-Casas, Ferré, & García-Albea, 2008;Guo et al, 2012;Ma, Chen, Guo, & Kroll, 2017;Moldovan, Demestre, Ferré, & Sánchez-Casas, 2016;Moldovan, Sánchez-Casas, Demestre, & Ferré, 2012), which indicates that translation equivalents were activated. For example, in Guo et al (2012), Chinese-English bilinguals conducted an English-Chinese (L2-L1) translation recognition task.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%